Forum:Fanart (again)
Just saw this. I'd discuss this there but the page is locked from editing. I'd like to discuss it again. There is no way fanart should be allowed on here, ever. This Wiki is not for fan activities or for fans to showcase their work, it is to document the official works for the Inheritance Cycle. Only images from official products, such as the books and film, should really be used. It doesn't matter if there's no other images available, fanart just should have no place here. [[User:Drewton|''Drewton]] ([[User talk:Drewton|''Drewton's Holocron]]) 18:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC) :The wiki is primarily about the books. Fanart that looks more like the book than the movie definitely belongs here. Fanart that is simply a sketch of Ed Speleers does not. I do not promote fanart simply to advetrise people's art. It is about accurately representing Christopher Paolini's work. :Hopefully, with the new officially released picture book, we won't have as many problems. 21:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC) ::Except that images don't have to be here. If there's no official image for something, just don't use any. Again, this is a documentation of official information and official information only. It doesn't matter how much any fan art is accurate; the fact that it's fan art means that it shouldn't be here in any form. Look at Wookieepedia, for example. There's thousands of images without images because there's no official images available. And we don't resort to fan art in any of those cases. It's as bad as fanfiction simply because it's fanmade. Your argument is essentially "There's no information on this so we'll just make up our own story". [[User:Drewton|''Drewton]] ([[User talk:Drewton|''Drewton's Holocron]]) 20:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC) :::Good points, but Wookieepedia isn't comparable to Inheriwiki because they don't have two sources of images that directly contradict each other. Also, we are not "making up our own story." Your argument is, "this information doesn't count, because it was not released by Company A or Company B." It would also be a pretty boring website if it didn't have pictures. And since when are we trying to be like Wookieepedia? (No offense.) 21:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC) "Good points, but Wookieepedia isn't comparable to Inheriwiki because they don't have two sources of images that directly contradict each other." How would that make the two incomparable? And Star Wars has had many, many cases where there's completely different depictions of characters. I also wouldn't think that the images (or anything from the film) would be considered "canon". "Also, we are not "making up our own story."" Not what I meant. What I meant was that using fanmade images was as bad as that. "Your argument is, "this information doesn't count, because it was not released by Company A or Company B."" And...is there anything wrong with that? "It would also be a pretty boring website if it didn't have pictures." That really doesn't matter, since we should only be using official content. Is this page that interesting? No. Should we be making up our own information for that to make it more interesting? No. "And since when are we trying to be like Wookieepedia? (No offense.)" It's not that we should be making ourselves like Wookieepedia, exactly, but the concepts of it and this Wiki are exactly the same thing, if you replace Inheritance with Star Wars and vice-versa: a documentation of official works and official works only. I hope I'm not coming off as rude, I just think it's ridiculous we're allowing anything fanmade on here. Hopefully, after the fourth book is released, we'll get some more artwork. [[User:Drewton|''Drewton]] ([[User talk:Drewton|''Drewton's Holocron]]) 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC) :Sorry, I did'n't realize that about Star Wars. Still, I would rather see the current Eragon picture than Ed Speleers. Ed Speleers isn't canon. :It would be ridiculous if we said, "Eragon will kill Galbatorix in Eoam in Book Four," or "There is a wild dragon named Vaaraghoorn who is hiding in Eoam, and the Az Sweldn rak Anhûin have his Eldunari." However, it would not be so ridiculous to have a fan-made map of Eoam showing Beirland and the surrounding islands. :Also, is there a pink fairy that flies around to film companies declaring their work "official?" :The main difference between the fanart here and fanfiction is that one is canonical and one is not. And personally, what I am hoping for is a canonical remake of Eragon, and canonical movies of Eldest, Brisingr, and Book IV. That should solve most of these problems. 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC) You're completely missing the point and misunderstanding what canon and official are. I'm NOT saying we should be using the image of Ed Speelers. I'm saying we shouldn't be using ANY apart from those in the books because there aren't any canon ones available. Fanart is NOT canon and is NOT official in anyway. If Christopher Paolini decides that the fanart being used on Eragon's page is canon, then it's canon. But he hasn't, and none of us have any right to make anything canon. Fanart may try to use canon details but that doesn't mean it IS canon. I'll repeat myself: it doesn't matter how much any fanart is accurate; the fact that it's fanart (fanmade) means that it shouldn't be here in any form. [[User:Drewton|''Drewton]] ([[User talk:Drewton|''Drewton's Holocron]]) 18:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC) :You're saying that we shouldn't have any images except the ones from the book. I think this is an issue of what the wiki should be, and we agree on what is canon (the books only) and what is official (again, just the books). The question is whether to allow movie images and fanart as well as, say, John Jude Palencar's artwork. :My preference is that we only allow images that don't contradict the books. 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC) As a Wookieepedia contributor, I understand where Drewton is going with this, but I also have to admit that the anon on this thread has a good point too. Honestly, most of the fanart around here is utterly ridiculous... especially on Arya's article, Eragon's article, Trianna, and some others that I've seen. But looking at a few others, like Orik's for instance, I have to admit that the work is... professional. What I'm trying to say is that, since there's so much debate going on here (and on Narutopedia with some other Wookieepedian user hoping to edit there), we should form a border line to end this dispute. Due to the nature of the Inheritance Cycle and the inaccuracies of the Eragon movie, I think what we should do is have a discussion or concensus track or something to review each fanart before passing it down as whether it should or should not be allowed on an article. The fanart should be checked for accuracies and the utmost professional work (not some anime or cartoon work as seen on Arya's page--no offense--or on Eragon's armor and clothes--no offense--or some random person like on Trianna's page). Since most of the users here thinks that it's alright for fanart to be allowed and we're a civilized community, we should vote on this. Most importantly is that fanart shoudn't be allowed here and there, otherwise stick figures will be allowed. No, if we're gonna have fanart, then we need a policy to bring each fanart to a discussion page where it is reviewed before it is either deleted or passed on as okay. Honestly, this will probably take down most fanart around here, but it's necessary. As for the film ones, they should also be passed through voting. For instance, the Ra'zac from the film really don't look anything like they're described in the book, but honestly the fanart in its infobox... you'd have to admit its accurate and doesn't conflict with canon. And... do we really want a film version of the Urgals as the main image for the article? Anyways, I'm just saying, if you guys really want to settle this, the best option is to go borderline and pass each fanart and film image through a discussion where each user votes on whether it's alright or not. Of course then there's the problem with potential sockpuppets... and so many inactive users... This wiki really needs help... but so do many others... Cyfiero 10:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC) :Thank you, Cyfiero. We seem to agree. 15:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I've never read any of the Inheritance books, and I've never contributed here before so I hope I'm allowed to participate in this discussion, but here's my two cents: *We should never, ever allow fan art. Not only does it look bad, but it's basically making up a story, like Drewton said. *I'd support using images from the films. I know this may contradict what I said above, in way, but an argument has been raised that the most recent movie isn't canon enough for images from it to be used here. But really, there is no degree of canonicity; there's just canon and non-canon. I don't really care about movie images though, as long as fan art is not used. 02:44, March 14, 2010 (UTC) Perhaps asking a Administrator if they know about Fan art restrictions on InheriWiki would be a start.... Or start a vote, to see others views, rather than the select few who are commenting on this thread....Will! 11:41, July 23, 2010 (UTC)